Still very few specific answers on 4e, the game ??????
HEROIC 1st level characters.
Different rules for PCs, NPCs, & Monsters.
Mook rules.
Core rulebooks every year.
Consolidated (or is it oversimplified?) skills.
Defenses instead of Saving Throws.
AC instead of DR.
Succubus is now a devil.
Inclusion of Tieflings and Dragon-whatitsname as core races.
All characters must have equal utility/power in combat as a design goal.
Video-gamey "uber-cool" powers. Specifically, I hit someone and my allies heal. WTF?
The Digital Initiative content being "core".
The "reimagined" gnome.
EPIC level play assumes players will take on gods in combat. (Wasn't cool when I was 13, still seems dorky now.)
The extremely weak reinvented Dragon "magazine".
And that's just off the top of my head. Give me time to think about it and I'm sure I can come up with more. This, of course, is excluding the demeaning way that they've been telling us that if we're not salivating about 4e, there must be something wrong with us. Nor does it include the pathetic arguments that 3.5 is "too hard", or overinflating the difficulty of the Grappling rules.
Also, no matter how many times they tell me how cool 4e is and how much I'll love it, they're not going to convince me unless they show me why it's cool. (It'd also be nice if they then explained why they made the mechanics changes. Kinda like they did with 3e...)
Final point - Paizo, Green Ronin, and other companies act as though they want to earn my business and appreciate my support. WotC acts as though I've got no other choices for where my RPG dollar will go. If they say it's time for 4e, well I better get on board or be left behind.
|
WotC isn't actually a person.
etc., etc.,
Come on now, Sebastion, this is drivel.
The company has misled its fanbase; it has adopted a policy of not listening to its customers; it has published mostly inferior products compared to similar companies for 3 years now.
Even if there weren't better product elsewhere -- there is -- why would you spend your money on WotC's product?
In fact, at least one initial supporter of 4E has indicated that the WotC PR job has been such a failure that he is angry at the company.
Feel free to raise your hand, Sebastion.
For all I know, (WotC's PR is) working like gangbusters for those poor strawmen kids playing MMORPGs.
This is valid. Somewhere on the Paizo boards a while ago someone said that when 3E replaced 2E that WotC considered lost consumers no big loss as long as new consumers took their place. Well, WotC has lost me as a customer, maybe someone else will take my place.
(Someone Else): WotC could put $100 dollar bills in their products and people would complain about how they were folded.
Thank you for proving my point so well. WotC has F@#!ed up so bad that people resort to gross exageration to illustrate how badly a job they're doing.
Why would I consider those things? Very little of it is true.Plus, consider this:
I'm sorry. What did I state that wasn't true?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The company has misled its fanbase; it has adopted a policy of not listening to its customers; it has published mostly inferior products compared to similar companies for 3 years now.
*shrug* Lacking the ability to speak on behalf of the entire fanbase, I must defer to your expertise on the matter. I don't feel mislead, I don't think the products are inferior, and I don't know what sort of market research they are doing.
Even if there weren't better product elsewhere -- there is -- why would you spend your money on WotC's product?
I want to play D&D. I am interested generally in what is coming out.
In fact, at least one initial supporter of 4E has indicated that the WotC PR job has been such a failure that he is angry at the company.
Feel free to raise your hand, Sebastion.
Part of why I'm pissed is because it adds credence to garbage arguments from people who didn't want 4e and were hostile to the idea before it was even launched. Feel free to raise your hand.
Thank you for proving my point so well. WotC has f!~#ed up so bad that people resort to gross exageration to illustrate how badly a job they're doing.
Yeah, lord knows that's something new. Do yourself a favor and dig up what people said about 3e's launch. The same types of thing were said then, and that was generally a good PR job.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm sorry. What did I state that wasn't true?Why would I consider those things? Very little of it is true.Plus, consider this:
I guess it'll remain a mystery.
(hint: you need official miniatures to play D&D about as much as you need official dice. See if you can puzzle out the rest of what was incorrect from there.)
Hate? No. Hate's a strong word with strong feelings tied to it. [and all the rest]....
What Warforged Goblin said.
I'm sorry. What did I state that wasn't true?Why would I consider those things? Very little of it is true.Plus, consider this:
I guess it'll remain a mystery.
(hint: you need official miniatures to play D&D about as much as you need official dice. See if you can puzzle out the rest of what was incorrect from there.)
Wow! Talk about nitpicky! Somebody's grumpy tonight...
My general point with the minis was that if I had spent hundred's of dollars assembling a collection, and i know several people who have, it would be yet one more expense in an already expensive endevour. You're right though. You don't need them. You don't NEED any of it.
No reason to imply I was lying though.
|
|
One does not need to be able to speak on behalf of the entire fanbase to see that a very large number of fans/consumers are upset. Indeed, WotC and ENWorld have apparently had to delete or edit "hate" Threads and posts because of their volume.
At least you had the decency to say "part" of the reason you're pissed...
Of course, you should be able to see why that argument is bs.
Oddly, I never cared about the coming of 4E. Likely I would've been very open to it as I feel 3E is quite broken. Canceling the mags is what caused my anger at WotC. It only got worse from there; had 4E come w/out the elimination of the mags it wouldn't have bothered me so much.
Well, I must be drinking the WOTC kool-aid, but I'm generally pleased with their behavior. I picked up races and classes, and after reading that I am somewhat more confident they will make a game I want to play. There are some announced changes that I like, some that I don't, but I *generally* trust that most of the people working on the game sincerely love it. For me, that means a lot.
I'm going to reserve judgement on 4E until I read the darn thing. I can say with certainty that I will buy the core three and go from there. The fact that my 3.5 game recently fell apart makes taking the "wait and see" attitude that much easier.
What they did to Dungeon and Dragon was a serious mistake though; they should have brought Paizo onboard and let them continue to handle the mags. But that of course is another story...
4e killed my dog, stole my wife, and keyed my car. You'd hate 4e if it did those things to you too.
Heh, that made me chuckle. :)
To answer the thread topic, I don't hate 4e, I don't even know what it is yet since I've followed the WotC updates sporadically. I do however dislike the hamhanded attempt at "marketing" that they've been doing. If 4e is worth it then my group will eventually switch over once my current campaign finishes up (not for another few years probably). If it's not worth it then we'll just continue on with 3.5e.
What I've gathered so far is three basic reasons people are upset with Wizards.
1. They are trying to squeeze every penny from every customer.
2. They are insulting the gamer base by their poor PR and their renouncing of "30 years of past gaming."
3. I don't like many of the changes they are making.
Here's my reaction to that:
1. Of course they are trying to make money in every way they can. I work as a marketer...I know why they are doing it. Because they are paying their salary. But a lot of those extra expenses are optional. DI, supplementary books, miniatures - I don't really need these to play the game. Right now I can't play 4e. When I've spent $60 with Amazon in July, then I can play 4e. $60 = a faster, better game (assuming that's what happens). If I don't like the game, then I can still play 3.5. If I want to enhance my game with further PHB's & DMG's then I can, just like with 3.5. What's the problem with offering extra services that, yes, cost money?
Frankly, this hobby is expensive. I've personally had to buy most of the Complete books to keep up with my players. I've purchased $20 books every month from Paizo and plan to buy all the other Pathfinder supplements. Don't you think they are interested in making money with all the cards, supplements, APs, adventure modules, etc. that support Pathfinder?
2. Admittedly their PR has been poor. But that doesn't mean the people at WotC are bastards. Working as a marketer, I've realized that public perception varies according to extenuating circumstances or blatant lies generated by overly emotional people. Have they really said that 3.5 is broken, or merely that it has its problems they are trying to improve? And God knows, based on my games, 3.5 could use some cleaning up. Why are there cries for a 3.75? I would say because most people know the game needs improvements.
My guess is that they do listen to their fan base and when 95% say they have never played a gnome (this is a made up statistic, but could be real for all I know) they take note. They do claim to listen to the fan base and I have no reason at this point to doubt them.
And yes, they lied about the approach of 4e. But this is a marketing decision, not a "let's treat our customers like idiots" ideology. This is a practice many companies use, regardless of its size or the ethical nature of its employees.
3. Hey, if you don't like the new game mechanics, that's a legitimate complaint. But this may be a personal preference. Even the fine folk here at Paizo say they like some of the changes that have been rumored. They are taking a wait and see attitude, which seems intelligent since they haven't actually seen the game. That's why I say, give 4e a chance. If you don't like it after you've seen it, so be it.
My only personal problem with WotC is their cancellation of the magazines. But that doesn't mean I hate everything they do and say.
My hope with this thread is to soften the anti-4ers, not for them to accept my arguments, but to perhaps receive another perspective that may ease the current schism. To me, the best possible world is a better game that publishers (like Paizo) and gamers can use for a better campaign. But this is surely impossible if people don't even give the game a chance.
4e killed my dog, stole my wife, and keyed my car. You'd hate 4e if it did those things to you too.
Yes, but if your dog bit you every time you walked in the room, your wife was sleeping with the mailman anyway, and your car looked like it had been at the bottom of the ocean, shouldn't you be thanking 4e?
Just sayin'...
My take on the matter:
I don't hate the concept of 4e. I'm open to the idea that the core system can be improved, and some of the concepts I've heard sound reasonable or good.
I really dislike almost everything I've heard about the non-rule aspects of the games. This includes changes to lore, races, monsters, and in particular, game worlds. I've been a hardcore Forgotten Realms fan for years, and bought every supplement for 3.x FR. However, the changes that they've announced for that world bothered me to the point that I no longer feel interested in playing there.
But to echo Molech, what's worse is not the plans, but the response of WoTC to complaints about what is coming. I'm not talking about a negative response to flames, whines, or other general griping. I'm talking about calm, reasoned attempts to ask why, and to then suggest alternatives that would achieve the goals WoTC stated were behind the changes, but with less perceived damage to the feel of the world. The responses to this ranged from poor to condescending, I felt.
In short, I feel like I have been told that my opinions are not valued, and that I am a customer are either unwanted, or taken for granted.
|
This is valid. Somewhere on the Paizo boards a while ago someone said that when 3E replaced 2E that WotC considered lost consumers no big loss as long as new consumers took their place. Well, WotC has lost me as a customer, maybe someone else will take my place.
The reason they didn't care about losing 2e customers is that they really didn't have very many... how many 2e products did WotC produce? Any 2e'ers that came along were net gains, essentially. This is a much different case now, as they are really putting out a product that directly competes with, and is incompatible with, their own product. They have to somehow convince people who are playing what is still a well supported and robust system that they should switch to the new system, simply because it's new and they say it's cool and will be better.
I don't "hate" 4e. For me, and I think for many, one of the primary elements of this is principle.
They are, in my opinion, ruining the Forgotten Realms to make it conform to their new rules. I like playing in the Forgotten Realms - that's the kind of gaming I like. If they need to change it so radically to fit the new rules, then it's not something I'm going to enjoy. So I just won't switch for FR campaigns.
4e rules are apparently so different from 3e rules that conversion is nigh impossible. OK... I don't want to switch systems. If I did I certainly wouldn't go to one that sounds like some kind of Dragonball Z / WoW incarnation. I would go with something more traditionally "fantasy RPG".
I think the biggest problem here is that people are being drawn in because it's the same company but a totally different product. If WotC shut down all work on D&D and didn't replace it, but another company popped up and said, "we're making a new version of The World's Most Popular RPG called 4e. It's going to be <insert all the things that WotC has said about 4e>. Come join us!", would people switch? Some would, but I think a lot more wouldn't. WotC is counting on brand loyalty to keep at least some of its current customer base even though they aren't the target demographic (obviously). I think it's this "taking for granted" that angers a lot of people as well.
I guess in conclusion, for me, it's a matter of principle foremost, and secondly I just don't have any interest in the changes they have announced thus far.
|
|
4e killed my dog, stole my wife, and keyed my car. You'd hate 4e if it did those things to you too.
Yes, but if your dog bit you every time you walked in the room, your wife was sleeping with the mailman anyway, and your car looked like it had been at the bottom of the ocean, shouldn't you be thanking 4e?
Just sayin'...
And *that* is an excellent example of what WotC is telling us as well. "Your dog is ill behaved, your wife is untrue, and your car is a POS.... check out our new dog, wife, and car! They r0xx0rz! Here's *no* real information about them, but suffice to say they're better than the crap you have now! Sick! Gnarley! Bodacious! w00t!"
You didn't show that the alternative was any better, though claimed it to be so, just that the current state of things was not good.
|
|
My hope with this thread is to soften the anti-4ers, not for them to accept my arguments, but to perhaps receive another perspective that may ease the current schism. To me, the best possible world is a better game that publishers (like Paizo) and gamers can use for a better campaign. But this is surely impossible if people don't even give the game a chance.
And for this I find you annoying. Don't ask a question and then try to invalidate all the answers under the guise of trying to "soften" the anti-4e'ers. Especially on these boards, where I think things have been mostly civil in this area.
Nobody is going to convert anybody. If you like where the rules seem to be going, or you want to support WotC in whatever they do, then that's great for you. If I choose, for answers posted above, to not support their work then I think it's only fair that you respect my decision as I respect yours. We can still discuss why we do or don't support the upcoming changes, but you are already working from a flawed assumption: that "this is surely impossible if people don't even give the game a chance." Your base assumption that we will only find common ground if the anti-4e'ers come to your side of the argument. The flipside could be stated as such (though I don't personally feel this is appropriate, it's about analogous to your position): the pro-4e'ers (who have seen only as much of the new system as we have, and thus have no greater wisdom than we to justify LIKING where we DISLIKE) should take a critical look at the company and the product and try to break free from the sheep-herd. Again, I don't think this is the right way to look at things, but it's what I consider an analogue to the situation you present.
I guess some of the difference is that the anti-4e'ers are not trying to stop you from playing the game, just explaining why we feel that it isn't the game for us. The pro-4e'ers are like apostles out there trying to win converts. What does it matter to you if I play 4e or not? All the pro-4e'ers can do is echo what WotC has said, as there is no more information to work from. The anti-4e'ers can at least make a coherent argument since we have something to work from. There is no solid footing for arguing in favour of the new edition - WotC has even left you out there hanging by not giving you anything tangible or unvague enough to actually make good points about - and there's nothing to say that their unsubstantiated claims are actually true.
Anyway, good luck with your conversions. ;)
|
I think the anti-4E comes down to two camps (forgive me if this is said above - I can't be bothered to read the whole thing):
- those who just dislike the idea of a new edition, for various reasons (cost, loss of treasured fluff, etc.)
- those who are agnostic about the changes but don't like WotC's marketing approach.
I'm in the second camp.
So many reasons:
They're messing with the fluff. No need to mess with the fluff like that.
Plus, it seems that their assumptions about what D&D worlds are supposed to be will have a stronger impact in the rules. If your assumptions don't line up with those: Tough luck, you'll have to create your own stuff, because all the races and classes and so on are based on those assumptions.
They've turned the Forgotten Realms - my former favourite setting - into s**~.
A lot of great campaign settings will probably not work with 4e. Take Midnight. The rare magic part - a very important assumption in Midnight - is negated by classes that can do magic all day.
They're getting rid of races and classes that are important to me, like gnomes and druids, and introducing some weird crap as standard, like horny demons and mutie dragon men.
A lot of changes seem to turn the game into a dumbed down version made for idiots. Are D&D players really that stupid? I'd say not, and resent their implications.
That's all stuff that has to do with the game itself, but it doesn't stop there:
The way they killed the magazines didn't sit at all well with me. I think they were utter pricks for doing it, and I think it was a huge mistake. Of course, something good came of it, as we now have Golarion.
I'm fed up with their attitude. This: "3e sucks, everyone who plays 3e is a loser, better change quick or no longer be hip"
I hate how they suppress every critic on their messagebords (That Gluemix and EN World).
When 4E was first announced, I had planned on buying it just to check it out. But with each new release of information, the likelyhood of spending cash on a system that I possibly don't need or want is rapidly decreasing.
I'm not too worried about the cosmology changes.
Taking Gnomes out and adding Tieflings? Fine.
Spells and abilities at will is fine by me too.
The very first thing was their plan to stagger the release of the three core books. If I'm going to buy this, I'll want to get all three books together.
Movement is now based on 'squares'. This seems inline with a lot of the powers and abilities that have been revealed using a range measured in squares, or affect others that are so many squares away. This seems to be set in a way that makes using online or gridded/map methods a lot easier, but what about playing without these? What about playing without the extra books, and the hundreds of minatures and maps and instantly online resources? I do miss the times when these things were relatively unheard of and instead relied on verbal description and imagination when investigating, travelling or fighting for our lives.
I am simply not keen on the WoTC website; the layout, the slow updates, the magazine articles and the way that they are presented. And that these belong to the company that will be bringing us $E, this does not bode well. Other than Logue's Hell's Heart adventure, and the slightly amusing Beholder 'toon, very little content on the website interests me, nor has if for the last half a year or so.
Why use different classes of monsters? Elites? Why not simply use a creature 1 or 2 CR higher than the party of you want to challenge them rather than create a new sub-set of monsters?
Giving magical items a numerical rank just feels plain insulting. That's what prices are there for, they are a good indicator or how powerful or complicated something is, and that suits me just fine.
They say that the gods will be whittled down and compacted. This does not seem to be the case when compared to the amount of gods that were given in the 3.5 PHB.
They say that less dice will need to be rolled... Why do we need that? And when reading through snippets of aweful previews, this does not seem to be the case. What does seem to be the case is that players roll less dice, and DMs roll more, which is the last thing that we really need as the DM has a lot to take care of as it is.
There seem to be a lot more conditions and terminology and afflictions coming into play, whether injured, bloodied, poisoned, having to keep track of layer upon layer of buffs and debuffs is going to be a chore. (Sometimes I forget about having the Dodge or Point Blank Shot bonuses, so not sure how I'll manage with all these new pluses and minuses to add on to PCs and NPCs, especially in large battles as a DM).
All-in-all:
I dislike the fact that they seem to be using World of Warcraft and other MMORPG as templates or 'idea' resources.
|
|
I must admit that upon looking over the numerous 4e threads here, I'm surprised by the vitriol people feel about the whole process. Having just looked over Races and Classes, I can't say I find many of the changes to be bad - in fact, just the opposite. They seemed to have tackled many of the things that slow down play and enjoyment. I look forward to the game.
But that's just my opinion and others are welcome to hold their own. But why be hateful? I understand the anger over losing the magazines. I even understand why people don't like the way people at WotC are handling their marketing. So they are lousy at marketing... But why the attacks?
If I end up not liking 4e (but you know, none of us have actually seen it), then I'll play 3.5. I've got plenty of supplements, adventures, and enhancements to last me a lifetime. But if it's a better game, why not play it?
Change is inevitable - except from a vending machine. ~Robert C. Gallagher
It probably has something to do with MONEY...many gamers are heavily invested in 3.0/3.5 by the number of materials they have bought which, other than background material, may be made obsolete. There's also the possibility that while a certain percentage of the rules will change, the rest will remain the same (if it ain't broke, don't fix it)...say 25% new material at an average of 200pp per book, 29.95 per book for 3 core rule books...you do the math, but I can tell you the price will be too high to support the investment for me. I'd rather buy new 3.0/3.5 stuff with 100% new content.
The other factor is TIME, represented in the time it takes to read 3 core rulebooks and the time it takes to actually memorize the important changes to things like character creation, combat etc. Today, more than ever, people have less leisure time (myself included) and I'd rather be gaming than reading new rulebooks!
I'm not trying to win converts n my pro-4E-ness, I just get despondent when I'm insulted for so being - "quisling", "sheep" etc. I don't understand why people who are anti seem to be almost violently so. You can state your reasons and indeed many have, but I still see that you're over-reacting and taking marketing very personally.
|
|
I'm not trying to win converts n my pro-4E-ness, I just get despondent when I'm insulted for so being - "quisling", "sheep" etc. I don't understand why people who are anti seem to be almost violently so. You can state your reasons and indeed many have, but I still see that you're over-reacting and taking marketing very personally.
I'm happy to respect your views, and it's probably nicer to be unoffended (and unstressed) by these things that the rest of us fulminating away. I think the most vociferous are those who dislike the changes being made and are worried (as I am a little) that 4E will appeal to them so little that it will exclude them from future developments in the game (like new Pathfinder, for example) that they otherwise would participate in. My main worry about 4E as a game, rather than the messages from WotC, is that it will be dumbed down. 3E/3.5E can involve a heavy time investment to create adventures as a DM, but it is wonderfully flexible. I am concerned that this flexibility will be lost - that is my biggest fear.
I'm not trying to win converts n my pro-4E-ness, I just get despondent when I'm insulted for so being - "quisling", "sheep" etc. I don't understand why people who are anti seem to be almost violently so. You can state your reasons and indeed many have, but I still see that you're over-reacting and taking marketing very personally.
I think that marketing is indeed something to be taken seriously, isn't it? Especially with the awful one WOTC has been doing so far for their new system, and the clear way of them to say to the old guard: "Thanks, was great, now it's time you go..."
I don't think it's over-reacting to feel that this company has treated its fanbase like idiots and people who don't have a clue about what's great or not. I don't think it's over-reacting either to feel passionate about a game that everybody here loves and feel personally tied to, for many many reasons.
WOTC should be proud to handle a product that draws so many passion, and my feeling about their way of doing business currently is that they don't give a damn at all - they just want to do their thing and erase the past, whatever the cost. Or if they do care, they really really need take some PR courses, or hire some competent guys!
I don't think it's over-reacting to have read consciously all the infos and promos WOTC has made and consider this is nothing but a really bad product that we have ahead of us. Time will tell of course as we don't have the game yet in the shelves. But when you have to pay 20 bucks to read previews now, which is generally free with any other company, you can truely say that this is the last nail in the coffin...
Mark my words, and believe me or not: D&D4 will tank, because most of the old guard doesn't want it, because the company treated its customers like crap, and because the youngsters they try to attract couldn't care less. They have WOW and stuff, and they just won't switch to a paper RPG. As the old French adage says: when you try to hunt too many ducks, you're more likely to get none.
This message is not intended as a personal insult or anything - I respect everybody and everybody's arguments, and I just pointing my thoughts on the situation. We're not on the WOTC boards here, people do still have that rare quality that is politeness at Paizo's message boards :)
But that's the thing,- and I can see that people feel passionately. I really don't feel talked down to or treated like an idiot; I can't even try to enter the mindset where I could take the marketing of the game so personally. Is it lingering resentment over the cancellation of Dragon and Dungeon that is partially to blame?
But that's the thing,- and I can see that people feel passionately. I really don't feel talked down to or treated like an idiot; I can't even try to enter the mindset where I could take the marketing of the game so personally. Is it lingering resentment over the cancellation of Dragon and Dungeon that is partially to blame?
I would say that the handling of the magazines situation is responsible in big parts for the heat WOTC are feeling right now. I came to Dungeon/Dragon pretty late, so it's not as emotional to me.
For my part, it's really more a question of business/customer confidence, and the dismantling of all D&D basics reborn in a so-called "ubbercool" and "newwww" way of doing business that I can't dig.
|
|
I think there is resentment about the magazines (and the replacement - I used to regularly look at the WotC website, but now (1) Gleemax is blocked at work and (2) I'm reluctant to pay for the content as it was once free).
A lot of people (including myself) have a lot of money invested in the existing products for 3.5, and we want to see what this new edition is about - and feel a little frustrated with the relative lack of information. (Dragon, at the time of the change from 2E to 3E, ran a fairly comprehensive series of articles setting out the changes at a high level. I revisited some yesterday to see if there really was a different level of information, or if it was just my memory playing up, but the articles were still good and informative.) If we are going to junk our old books, we want more than what looks suspiciously like spin (lot's of telling us that it is good, but not a lot of why).
I also think there is suspicion at WotC commercial motives. I am happy with the idea that WotC is a commercial enterprise and needs to make a profit. But I won't lay out cash for crap. Some of the books that have come out lately, albeit that I understand there is an edition change that precludes releasing a lot of new material, is crap. Races and Classes, and what about the Dungeon Survival Guide or Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress? Pure piffle with nothing to interest a gamer with any experience at all. Yet this is the same company that will be producing a new edition which we are assured will transform our gaming experience, and expecting us to buy the new books. Some people are worried about being ripped off, I suspect.
For some, there is the junking of treasured fluff, like the gods and particularly the cosmology. It is certainly true that you can change it in your homebrew if you want, but when it is coupled with very value-loaded commentary from the WotC designers about how this is "better" or "fits better with the new edition", it implies that you are a bit of a chump for actually liking the, by inference, "inferior" version. And as this also implies a "we know best" sort of mentality, it also rubs people who might hold other views up the wrong way. Because we have something of an information deficit, simply taking the word of WotC management (who killed off Dragon and Dungeon, after all) is unlikely to appeal to a lot of players.
Hell, even the imposition of the Delve format on each and every encounter (despite very clear evidence that it isn't that clear, actually makes the books it appears in harder to read as you actually get more page-flipping rather than less, leads to dumbed-down encounters because it has to fit on one or two pages, and grotesquely inflates the size of adventures so that WotC now "have to" release everything as a hardbacked book 250 pages long when it used to fit into 32) winds me up.
Individually, these don't add up to much. But together, it is a bit annoying. I read with interest somewhere that they are reaching out to a new audience. Well, fine. None of the above will prevent me from buying the Core 3 of the new edition, though others may feel otherwise. But I feel a mild disgruntlement, nevertheless, and expect I will be much more selective about what I buy, assuming I even like it at all.
There are a lot of reasons why people dislike 4E and many of them quite individual -- I know my reasons are probably shared by very few -- but I think the number 1 reason is this: 4E's roll-out makes it blatantly clear, perhaps for the first time and certainly in a way a lot of people weren't accustomed to, that WotC is a business. 4E's roll-out has shattered a lot of naive illusions people had about WotC, which had been coasting on almost a decade of goodwill in the gaming community after they saved D&D not once (when they bought TSR) but twice (when they released 3E to great acclaim). I know people who still, to this day, think Peter Adkison is out there in his shining armor, astride his destrier, and waiting for the right moment to charge in and save the hobby again. They think this because the alternative is to realize that there's the hobby we all enjoy and then there's the industry that supports it and the two operate under different and sometimes contradictory principles.
Had 4E's roll-out been handled differently (I won't say "better," because that's a loaded word), the reaction people are having might have been different too. Right now, a lot of people are in a state of shock to discover WotC's priorities are not necessarily yours. It's like realizing your parents have sex. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it but you'd rather not think about it. Given that there's a dedicated core of ill-mannered fan boys out there who insist on reminding us this fact about our parents, I'm not the least bit surprised that some people are a bit touchy.
Me, I've moved on entirely. 4E has been a powerful catalyst in thinking about what I like in roleplaying game and in D&D. I'm seeking my entertainment else. I don't hate 4E, but I won't be playing it.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I don't like where 4.0 is going, and this is a good place to jump off.
As others have mentioned, I don't like the Realms Reboot/Nuke, so my official following of the Timeline stops somewhere around 1400
I don't like that the web enhancements/dragonshards/things that got cut from the books are now called 'Dragon Magazine'
I don't like that rules changes/clarifications will be 'hidden' behind the DI
I find the marketing/handling of the SRD horrid.
I find the "We're working on a massive errata update" coments so much bunk now that they've said "Except that we're not."
I like Vancean casting.
I don't like the fluff changes.
It's not that I hate 4.x or Wizards, or Hasbro for that matter. It's that I don't play the Warhammer FRPG, I don't play GURPS, and I won't be playing 4.x. I don't want or need a new game engine.
I'll be looking at the SRD, and I'll be converting the things I like that I don't already have (I have my 3.x OGL Dragonborn stats, they're called Dracha)
In regard to maliszew's post.
The direction of WotC changed some time after the Monster Manual II and the release of Unearthed Arcana. That sea change is why some people (me included) are warry about OGL 2.0
Oh, I agree. I think WotC's direction changed in the ramp-up to v.3.5 and has continued to shift in the direction we're seeing now. However, very few people realized this at the time and it's something that's only noticeable in hindsight. 4E's roll-out, though, adds a lot of pieces to the puzzle and now, suddenly, people who'd previously not seen the Big Picture can do so and they're reacting viscerally to it.
|
|
@BPorter - right on, man! Great points, and I know you're just getting started.
@Aubrey - I respect your view, for many others this scenario may not be that simple.
@Sebastien - Sorry, this issue is bigger than your selection of t.v. shows.
@Wimsey - No. This scism has not even yet begun. It needs to happen. Those who feel this way are led to believe they're feeling misplaced *fill-in-the-emotion*, but they're feeling something valid, something important, but as a group can't seem to focus their rightful voice in a direction that the wizards in the ivory tower would even notice.
In fact, I propose, this is because there there should be a split, a meaningful departure from the wizards who even now are twisting their ringfingers and grinning because soon they will have monopolized the whole genre, catered to the very youngest of consumers, and leaving the rest behind, abandoned, without support, without the OGL, crushing any possible chance to have such a voice in the future.
In time I believe we'll realize what a monopoly feels like, soon we will not be guessing how bad it is to have the entire genre controlled unquestionably, and changed on whims of so-called "designer" preferences. I feel deep disappointment that the (4E writers) people fortunate enough to work on the game we love, don't demonstrate a coherent intimate understanding of what the game is all about.
Frankly, as Erik Mona has suggested, the heritage, history, legacy, and future of this game may be at stake. Please take a moment to see that as a good reason to have strong emotions. Please understand that the group of gamers who post on PAIZO message boards are still seeking to understand just why they feel so pissed. Let's stop defending the wizard's schemes - but begin as a group to recognize them and do something about it... while we still have a voice.
Thank you Aubrey for a very well reasoned post without anything too emotive. I don't take the inferences you (and some others) do but I can understand that if you do, you may feel disgruntled.
Good to hear something of how someone feels without it being torrid.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
What got my attention even back then:
MM II, included two creatures from the Creature Collection. How cool was that, they just promoted the competition!
Deities & Demigods, more OGL goodness
Tome of Horrors project: Here, take all these classics and OGL them.
Unearthed Arcana: More OGL goodness from us and shout outs to what we consider the best and brightest of the competition.
After that, poof! No more Open Content, no more saying "Look at the cool stuff these guys made."
|
|
Interesting. For me, I got the impression the rot really set in when the SCAP hardback was such a big success. I don't know how much of the money WotC got out of that, but it was obvious then that while before they were happy to subcontract adventures as they didn't think they would make money, it was then obvious that advenures actually can make a lot of money (relatively). (Though one might argue that a company that refused to produce adventures for its own RPG was kind of disfunctional already.)
Their refusal to countenance any more Paizo Dungeon-based hardbacks made it clear that they wanted to hog that market to themselves, and probably were the origins of the Dungeon (and logically) Dragon death sentence, coupled with the online initiative. Unfortunately, I think WotC coast forgot that all the expertise in adventure writing (or most of it) left them when they outsourced to Paizo. So not only do we have WotC trying to corner the adventure market, bringing everything in-house, but the adventures they produce are inferior (and don't get me started on Delve!).
Why do so many people *hate* 4e?
I am not in the state of hating it, as I haven't seen much of WOW-E as yet. But since they are essentially about to wreck much of "my" preferred setting while chucking long established lore, I have no problem in understanding why people start to hate 4E even before it is out.
And it looks much like that the "hate" comes from the role-players who live their setting (Greyhawk, FR, Eberron) and know its lore, rather than the players who essentially run about for XP, loot and monster - slaying, what I call the WoW-Brigade these days.
I must admit that upon looking over the numerous 4e threads here, I'm surprised by the vitriol people feel about the whole process. Having just looked over Races and Classes, I can't say I find many of the changes to be bad - in fact, just the opposite. They seemed to have tackled many of the things that slow down play and enjoyment. I look forward to the game.
But that's just my opinion and others are welcome to hold their own. But why be hateful? I understand the anger over losing the magazines. I even understand why people don't like the way people at WotC are handling their marketing. So they are lousy at marketing... But why the attacks?
If I end up not liking 4e (but you know, none of us have actually seen it), then I'll play 3.5. I've got plenty of supplements, adventures, and enhancements to last me a lifetime. But if it's a better game, why not play it?
Change is inevitable - except from a vending machine. ~Robert C. Gallagher
1) Because I did like Dragon magazine. And any company that took it off the shelf, physically, is not getting my money.
2) I hate the "plusta"; It used to be when people talked about somebody boring you with talking about their character it was the long and involved backstory."My character comes from blah blah blah who got slaughtered by orcs when blah blah blah from a wizard living in a tower."
Now it is The Attack of the Plustas.
"My character gets plusta plusta plusta whenever he uses his offhand and gets plusta plusta plusta that stacks with his familiar and charges to get a plusta plusta plusta."
Is D&D4 going to fix that? Hells no! Reading those previews I can hear somebody in my mind going "My character gets a plusta plusta plusta that triggers a heal for another plusta plusta plusta every third round plusta plusta plusta on odd numbered weekdays."
Screw that, and screw any game that turns people into googly eyed plusta bombers.
Edit: Sorry for the rant. I just snapped after listening to a group of gamers talking about their characters. It all started to sound like this cacophony of plustas.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Frankly, as Erik Mona has suggested, the heritage, history, legacy, and future of this game may be at stake. Please take a moment to see that as a good reason to have strong emotions. Please understand that the group of gamers who post on PAIZO message boards are still seeking to understand just why they feel so pissed. Let's stop defending the wizard's schemes - but begin as a group to recognize them and do something about it... while we still have a voice.
Feh, never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
WotC is making (arguably) poor marketing decisions.
You want to keep the 'heritage, history, legacy, and future' of the game alive? Write! Create! Teach the Munchkins! "Still have a voice"? You have the entire internet!
When Paizo goes 4.x they'll be writing what they know. With my 3.x works (Spellstalker, which we're playtesting, Arcane Legionary gish which I'm working on, various spells/powers/creatures) I'm writing for the system I've come to enjoy. I had a great time teaching kids at the local shop's free comic book day. I'll be doing it at the next one too. Heck if their parents were cool and we had a place to play, I'd be happy to run a group of 10-14 year olds. I love kids.
Next time someone wants to play a World of Darkness game? I crack open McWoD, my Green Ronin Firearms book, and my martial arts book.
What I've gathered so far is three basic reasons people are upset with Wizards.
1. They are trying to squeeze every penny from every customer.
2. They are insulting the gamer base by their poor PR and their renouncing of "30 years of past gaming."
3. I don't like many of the changes they are making.Here's my reaction to that:
<post continues>
I was pretty neutral when 4e was announced. I thought it was too soon but was curious how they were going to change the game (& why). Since the announcement, about the only positive thing I've heard is less reliance on magic items. Unfortunately, even that appears to be nerfed by upping the PC's power level even further.
You can claim to be above it all with your "Give 4e a chance, not trying to change your mind" but that doesn't mean I hate 4e or WotC or that I have an unreasoned opinion. WotC helped me arrive at my current position, I didn't start here. Since the announcement, WotC has pushed me from neutral (wait & see, then decide), to "probably buy the core 3 - wait ALL PHBs, DMGs, and MM will be CORE?", to not even interested.
I've played a wide range of RPGs over the years, from many different publishers, so I've got a pretty good idea of what types of mechanics I think work for my players and campaigns and what doesn't. I'm always looking at different mechanics and RPGs for ideas. For example, I liked some of the mechanics from Mearls' Iron Heroes RPG but I don't like what I'm seeing with 4e.
To put it another way, you can tell me you make this terrific dish that I HAVE to try. If it has the odor, appearance, and apparent consistency of dog crap on toast and my relexive reaction is to vomit, I don't need to eat it to know I won't like a crap sandwich.
If you like what you've seen of 4e, that's great. I don't HATE 4e or WotC. I am entitled to dislike what I'm seeing of the game, especially when that opinion has been formed by evaluating what WotC has made available thus far.
2. They are insulting the gamer base by their poor PR and their renouncing of "30 years of past gaming."
WotC may own the licence to D&D, but they do not OWN D&D itself. The players do. WotC did not come up with the concept of RPGs. Gygax did. D&D was a toolkit for which you could make your own fantasy legends. It allowed you to come up with your own world.
4E has a very specific vision for where it wants to go and its being written into the game at the PHB level. Its not like its optional books that you can ignore. If it was like Races of the Wild, you could just say, "We're not using that book. I have my own ideas for elves and halflings." Yes you can still do that, but there's a different level of expectation when its in the core book as opposed to a supplement.
Wizards is the game's stewards, not the owners. 4E marks a moment where they take the game into a direction as owners, not as stewards.
I'm not trying to win converts n my pro-4E-ness, I just get despondent when I'm insulted for so being - "quisling", "sheep" etc. I don't understand why people who are anti seem to be almost violently so. You can state your reasons and indeed many have, but I still see that you're over-reacting and taking marketing very personally.
I haven't really seen hard-liners on either side bashing the opposing opinion on these boards. (Passionate debate, yes. Unreasoned fighting/hate, no.) Over at ENWorld, that tide seems to have turned the wrong way, with hardcore anti-4e'ers exaggerating or ascribing motives to everyone and the pro-4e'ers claiming the high ground while pummeling anyone who isn't ecstatic about 4e into a bloody pulp.
Also, purely from a debate standpoint, you go from "people" to "you" and "you're" in the space of a sentence. Unless you're trying to group all of the folks questioning or against 4e into a single group, you're doing the same disservice to the people who disagree with you that you are claiming is being done to you.
Finally, yeah, I AM taking the marketing personally. It's insulting. This is a hobby in which I've invested a HUGE amount of time and money. I did actually stop to consider if I was being too sensitive or negative. However, since I have other RPGs companies to compare against (Paizo, Green Ronin, Mongoose, etc.) their treatment of their customers compared to WotC is a stark contrast. I also have those pre 3E-launch Dragons that I went back and re-read. The difference in tone and respect (not to mention mechanics details) given D&D fans then versus now is significant.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hey, folks.
Looking over Races and Classes, I'm not convinced that D&D 4th Edition is going to be a poor game. It looks like some reasonably smart people, who care about the gaming experience, have been working hard to release...
...a game that I'm not interested in picking up and playing.
To explain why, I have to give a little backstory.
Years ago, during the young days of AD&D 2nd Ed., I helped the RPGA run modules at conventions, and the reality of the situation was that the directors and probably the module writers were expecting the DMs to come to the table either not having read the adventure beforehand, or --at best-- cursorily glancing through it fifteen minutes earlier that day.
That reality imposed drastic restrictions on the complexity of adventure plotlines and the kind of encounters DMs could handle. Every RPGA module I ran had a very straightforward, "railroady" if you like, plot, with typical and unsurprising encounters.
And it is those conditions for which WotC designed the Delve format. They had a cadre of volunteer DM's running pre-generated PC's through a dungeon at Gen Con, and they needed an efficient way to deliver the right kind of information, clearly and quickly.
When I decide to run players through a pre-written adventure in my home campaign, I expect to sit down, read through things ahead of time, and take notes; I try to anticipate my players' tactics ("Going through the front door of a Hill Giant lair? Oh, please. They're far more likely to try to cut through the thatched roof.") and look up relevant rules.
In short, I don't need a Delve format.
The crunch changes in 4th Ed. looks to me as if they came from the same perspective that gave us the Delve format: making it easier to run and play the kind of D&D you find at conventions.
Everything I've seen of Fourth Edition suggests that the game that WotC wants to sell me is a tactical combat game, with some role-playing to make it cool. Like Warhammer, or Chainmail, or DragonDice. And I already own DragonDice.
It may be a perfectly good game, but it's not one I'm interested in buying.
It looks like some reasonably smart people, who care about the gming experience, have been working hard to release...
...a game that I'm not interested in picking up and playing.
I'm sure it will be well done, utilize better mechanics, and be an all around great game ... IF they called it something other then D&D. What they are putting out sounds like it would be a great game, but it is not what I have come to expect from a D&D game. There's nothing wrong with reimagining the game, as long as it builds on the history of the game. This doesn't.
|
|
The crunch changes in 4th Ed. looks to me as if they came from the same perspective that gave us the Delve format: making it easier to run and play the kind of D&D you find at conventions.
You know, I agree with you. But I would add that I am not convinced it will be "easier" to run.
Do you recall the What Can a Dragon Do in a Round? article?
On the dragon’s turn, the first thing it does is burst out in an inferno of flame, searing every PC within 25 feet—a free action. Then, with a standard action, it slashes out at the fighter and the cleric with its two front claws (even though they’re both 20 feet away). As another free action, it uses its tail to slap the rogue, who was trying to sneak up behind it, and pushes her back 10 feet. It’s getting angry at the wizard, so it uses a special ability to take another standard action: it spits a ball of fire at the wizard, setting him on fire. It has a move action left, which it uses to fly into a better position for its breath weapon. That ends the dragon’s turn.
It’s the fighter’s turn. He charges the dragon and manages to land a solid blow, dropping the dragon down below half its hit points. Oh—that gives the dragon the opportunity use its breath weapon as an immediate action. A huge cone of fire bursts from the dragon’s mouth, engulfing all four PCs. But at least the dragon is below 500 hit points!
Now the rogue moves around to flank with the fighter. Ordinarily, that would let the dragon use its tail slap again as an immediate action, but the dragon has used its immediate action already. That’s lucky for the rogue, who actually gets to make an attack this round! Unfortunately, she fails to hit the dragon’s AC of 49.
The wizard fails to put out the fire, so he takes more damage. Worse yet, the dragon’s breath scoured away the wizard’s fire resistance, so he takes the full amount. He blasts the dragon with a ray of freezing cold, but this isn’t 3rd Edition. The dragon takes normal damage, but it’s not enough to slow it down.
Finally, the cleric is up. Calling on the power of her god, she swings her halberd at the dragon—a critical hit! The damage isn’t bad, but even better, the wizard gets a nice surge of healing power.
He’s going to need it—it’s the dragon’s turn again.
OK, how is that easier? Every playtest article hints at all these exotic abilities and powers that elicit actions/response from other players and enemies...in bigger rooms with more monsters. Maybe it's no more difficult, but it sure doesn't sound easier.
|
|
Everything I've seen of Fourth Edition suggests that the game that WotC wants to sell me is a tactical combat game, with some role-playing to make it cool.
I'll admit, that is one of the thing I'm not altogether pleased with, but that is 3e influence. The combat chapter in the 3e PHB suggests a tactical combat game with some role-playing to make it cool. Posts on this message board and others have people discussing encounters as "having tactical potential" and what have you.
So, I think it unfair to decry 4e for that when 3e is most definitely the culprit in that aspect. I had hoped 4e would pull back from that some, but it seems that will not be the case.
I had hoped 4e would pull back from that some, but it seems that will not be the case.
Not when the minis are selling as well as they are.
Still very few specific answers on 4e, the game ??????The impression I get is that the crew at WotC have gone out of their way to make 4th "their own".
...
3rd edition and 3.5 have some mechanical issues (too many supplements mucking up the works, high level play headaches, multiclassing limitations that are patched by PrCs) but the game is deeply rooted in what came before and the writers seemed to respect that those who came to the table to play D&D did so because they wanted to play D&D and not some other fantasy RPG.
4th edition, for whatever reason, wants to redefine the "core concepts" of D&D and, in nearly every instance, I find myself at odds with the decisions being made. Changing the mechanics to facilitate play and improve the game is a laudable goal... but I just can't get behind what I've been reading over on EN World and on the WotC site.
This is pretty much where I am. If they were simply taking 3E and giving it "the Star Wars Saga Edition treatment" I would be fine with it. But from the sound of things, they aren't -- they're creating a new game with a few bits of overlap and a -LOT- of MMO jargon thrown in just to be irritating.[1]
Combine that with the unwarranted murder of my beloved Dragon and Dungeon magazines to push their online stuff, and you have a very surly Gneech.
Mechanically -- if you strip out all the bad PR, the irritating MMO stuff, and the "we hate traditional D&D tropes" mucking about with races and settings -- I expect that 4E will probably be fine. I seriously doubt it will actually be -better- than 3.5 [2], but a serviceable game system. But if that's all it's got in its favor, while having all this other baggage attached to it, the net result is very unappealing.
Thus, my antagonism towards 4E. I am not antagonistic towards those who are enthusiastic about it, the same way I'm not antagonistic towards people who love strawberry ice cream. I just can't comprehend the appeal.
-The Gneech
[1] Okay, they're probably NOT doing it just to be irritating, but that's sure what it feels like.
[2] 3.5 has its problems, particularly with stacking bonuses and complex character builds. But I have a hard time believing that 30 levels of character, getting a new bit of bling at every level, is going to be any less packed with mechanical clutter to keep track of.
|
|
I find the 4e threads from the Devs focused on fixing things that I didn't think were 'wrong,' and, in some cases, pulling the game away from what's kept me playing it for decades. There's a certain level of patronization to the tone of 'it was all wrong' that makes me feel like they are criticizing me for having ever bought their stuff before. (And gosh, being told that I shouldn't have bought their last product doesn't fill me with confidence about spending money on their new project! In five years will they be mocking me for having bought 4E and telling me how 5E 'fixes' everything?)
Right now it feels like they are positioning themselves to be more like MMORPGs (and I say this as someone who has played many of them, and still does far more than I should). I don't think that the MMORPG and the tabletop game cater to the same niche, and I feel strongly that an attempt to turn D&D in that direction would be a misstep. If Hasbro wanted to capture that market, they would be better-served dropping a nuke on Turbine, recapturing the DDO license and making a D&D Online game that captures the best aspects of the D&D franchise. DDO was an enormous failure, and was terribly disappointing. (A chance to play an EverQuest style game in a D&D game world? The goose that lays the golden egg right there. If I was in charge of Hasbro, the people who blew that opportunity would be living out of boxes right now! Here, have a bunch of money, and, I don't know, set it on fire and dance around it...)
But really, I find the stuff coming from the development team far less condescending and belittling than the fans who are in support of 4E who insist on calling anyone who has even the tiniest quibble about the need for a specific upcoming change as being 'reactionary grognard haters.'
Yeah, that's the *best* way to convince me to give 4E a chance. Call me names. Sometime around high school debate, one should learn that name-calling convinces no one of anything, and is, in fact, far more likely to make them go on the defensive and ignore anything productive one managed to say after the insult.
Seems to be the way of the internet. If I don't care for the proliferation of elven subraces, or, say, the Avariel, or the florid 2nd Ed Complete Book of Elves (The pain! The *pain*!), then it's because I'm a 'hater.' If I think Drizzt is a bit overexposed and the D&D equivalent of Wolverine, it's because I'm a 'hater.' If I don't personally care to use psionics, I'm a 'hater.'
In the real world, none of this stuff comes anywhere near earning my 'hate.' My not agreeing that 4E, sight unseen, is the best thing since sliced bread, due to the failure of precognitive powers telling me so, is not the same as 'hating' it. Technically, I can't 'hate' it yet, since I haven't seen it.
I'm actually kinda curious how people can support it so venomously when they also haven't actually seen it yet... (Or perhaps they have, I'm sure there have been playtest groups.)
Using internet logic, the popular interpretation would be that they 'hate' 3E and that *anything*, sight unseen, *has* to be better than what they are playing now. My heart goes out to the suffering people. I had no idea 3E was so horrible to you that you'd eagerly welcome *anything* to replace it.
I suggest, if 3E has been so terrible for those waiting so eagerly for 4E, that they try some other systems. Exalted, I am told, follows this style of play. But even that is a shallow patch compared to playing EverQuest 2 or World of Warcraft, which, I think, would *much* more appeal to the people enthusing about 4E than 4E ever will.
Rather than cheer the demise of a game that you don't like, to turn it into something kinda, sorta like an online game, why not just play an online game? I play and enjoy both, and while I'd love to play an Online game like D&D (and did try DDO, which was, sadly, not finished at the time of launch, and currently remains incomplete), I have no interest at all in throwing away many of the components and traits of D&D that I've enjoyed for 25 years just to make it more like an online game.
So much to say...
But I'll be brief. My prime issue with 4E is that it's too soon.The analogy I'll use is a computer game. [snipped for space]
I'm sorry, but what? Are you kidding me? You're going to use expansions and sequals to video games as an analogy to role playing game editions? They are completely different in their release cycles.
Video games come out once. They are a singular product, released once and often never printed again. RPG editions are an entire system of products, spanning across books, adventures, magazines, game aids, and assorted dice that get produced over the course of years. They get reprinted until they cease to be profitable, and even then live on in second hand books shops and collectors booths at conventions.
We've been playing 3rd edition for eight years now. They have been the best eight years this game has had, and I don't see many of you disagreeing with that. Eight years in which only one update to the primary books has been made, and every book printed for 3rd edition is still playable.
And now? It's time for an update. The 3rd edition system is pretty much complete. What were they suppsoed to do? Print another ten books like Nine swords and Incarnum? Introduce endless new classes and crazy power systems to the game until there are so many crazy, unbalanced systems that no one can remeber them all? Do you want them to just keep churning out the splat books until the Complete series actually has to make "The Complete Riding Dog"?
Eight years is a long time. Two presidental terms. The time most people spend in highschool and college combined. 2nd edition lasted 11 years, and nearly drove the game out of print by lasting that long. Look how horrible the books being printed in those last days were.
It's time for a new edition, before third edition wears so thin we all start hating it and the brand collapses. Better that they do it now, print the last few 3rd ed books to complete the collection, and start again with some fresh ideas.
So much to say...
But I'll be brief. My prime issue with 4E is that it's too soon.The analogy I'll use is a computer game. [snipped for space]
I'm sorry, but what? Are you kidding me? You're going to use expansions and sequals to video games as an analogy to role playing game editions? They are completely different in their release cycles.
It's time for a new edition, before third edition wears so thin we all start hating it and the brand collapses. Better that they do it now, print the last few 3rd ed books to complete the collection, and start...
1st edition was out from 1977 (the Monster Manual) until 1989. The PHB and DMG came out in 1978 & 1979, so I'd count that as a 10 year run.
2nd edition was out from 1989 until 1999... another 10 year run. The changes in the Revised edition of 1995 were relatively minor, so I don't consider them to be version 2.5 (though some people do).
3rd edition was release in 2000 and 3.0 stopped being supported in 2003 with the release of 3.5. That means it had a 3-year run!
3.5 has been around for 4 and 1/2 years.
Sorry but that just isn't cool with me and I won't be buying any of their products from this point onward.
PS: Nice avatar!
Also, purely from a debate standpoint, you go from "people" to "you" and "you're" in the space of a sentence. Unless you're trying to group all of the folks questioning or against 4e into a single group, you're doing the same disservice to the people who disagree with you that you are claiming is being done to you.
Apologies I should have used "one" rather than "you".